Occasioning learning in the workplace: The case of interprofessional peer collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we explore the potential of peer collaboration as a means of promoting continuous learning at work. Six peer collaboration groups comprised of 18 employees in a large urban health region in Canada participated in small collaborative inquiry groups over a period of 6 - 8 months. Using a collective case study design, each group provided one instrumental case that when combined with the other five served a supportive role in studying peer collaboration in continuous professional education. In this article, drawing on analysis of transcribed group conversations, we provide portraits of two interprofessional peer groups for in-depth discussion and further illustration. While one group used peer collaboration to: (1) retrace and reconsider their practical judgments; and (2) identify and explore breakdowns in practice, the other group demonstrated that peer collaboration can provide a space in which to identify and explore issues related to (1) workplace conflict, (2) professional boundaries and (3) emotional pain. The power of peer collaboration as an informal vehicle for continuous learning seems to lie in interprofessional conversation. This study suggests that unstructured but focused conversations about daily practice, among close colleagues from other professions, can yield surprising possibilities for learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".